Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27392572›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2016

Diagnosing acute appendicitis using a nonoral contrast CT protocol in patients with a BMI of less than 25.

Vijay Ramalingam, David D B Bates, Karen Buch, Jennifer Uyeda, Kathy M Zhao, Lindsey A Storer, Marisa B Roberts, Christina A Lebedis, Jorge A Soto, Stephan W Anderson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Acute Appendicitis in Childhood and Adulthood.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Vijay RamalingamDepartment of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, 820 Harrison Ave, FGH Building, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
David D B BatesDepartment of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, 820 Harrison Ave, FGH Building, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. David.Bates@bmc.org.
Karen BuchDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jennifer UyedaDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Kathy M ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lindsey A StorerDepartment of Radiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marisa B RobertsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Christina A LebedisDepartment of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, 820 Harrison Ave, FGH Building, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Jorge A SotoDepartment of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, 820 Harrison Ave, FGH Building, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Stephan W AndersonDepartment of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, 820 Harrison Ave, FGH Building, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Boston Medical Center · USBoston University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMcMaster University · CAUniversity Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy for the diagnosis of appendicitis in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute, nontraumatic abdominal pain and a body mass index (BMI) of less than 25 before and after the implementation of a nonoral contrast computed tomography (CT) protocol with intravenous contrast. The IRB approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study; informed consent was waived. This study included 736 adult patients with a BMI of less than 25 presenting to our ED with acute, nontraumatic abdominal pain over two distinct 6-month time periods. An oral and intravenous contrast-enhanced protocol was utilized in the first cohort (group A), and an intravenous contrast-enhanced protocol without oral contrast was utilized in the second cohort (group B). Three abdominal fellowship-trained readers retrospectively reviewed all CT studies and electronic medical records, including surgical/pathology reports that served as reference standards. Group A consisted of 359 patients; 41 patients had surgically proven appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of the readers for diagnosing appendicitis in group A ranged from 95.2-100 and 98.1-99.5 %, respectively. Group B consisted of 372 patients; 39 had surgically proven appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of the readers in group B ranged from 92.0-100 and 98.6-100 %, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity or specificity for CT scans performed in groups A and B. In patients with a BMI of less than 25, an intravenous contrast-enhanced CT protocol without oral contrast demonstrates similar accuracy to an intravenous contrast-enhanced protocol with oral contrast for diagnosing acute appendicitis.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAppendicitisBody Mass IndexContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaAcute abdomenAppendicitisCTEmergency radiologyOral contrastProtocols

Identifiers

PMID27392572
OpenAlexW2472917842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.